Unemployed lions, ways of asking, non-genre genres, and Human Pride Parade

[aletheiafelinea]

moth2fic says recently that November was good month. I must concur.






Lindsey Davis, The Silver Pigs
It met my expectations, fulfilled at least half of hopes, I enjoyed it, and... afterwards I found it hasn't left much in my head, at least in terms of a book following you. Or rather: it has left more new hopes than satisfaction. Not bad effect, especially from author's point of view... *g* I'm curious of the series' further development.
Funny thing, the thousand years of history, and writers and filmmakers almost always use a hundred years or so in the very middle. Looks like the reason is that they almost always use it in one of three ways: 1. the background for the early Christianity; 2. a mad tyrant and his court; 3. the background for the raging Vesuvius. I'm not particularly fond of the history used and depicted as the Great Theater of Kings, Battles, Politics, and whatnot, all in Big Letters, so no wonder that this time I was happy over a book where lions being kept on the strict Christian diet aren't the most important thing in Rome and the only reason for its existence. Also, as far as I'm concerned, it earns additional points for the emperor not being a madman. Funny, how little it needs sometimes for originality...

Mary Roach, Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife
I absolutely love this author! What a pity she has written only four books, I hope she'll write more. And pity they're so short, you really regret when see the last page. Yet within so little pages there's huge amount of issues, depicted in the way making you feel you got the essence. In a word, her books read. They read as not many books do.
I wouldn't exactly call it popular science writing. It's rather reportage on science. Not just plain summary of literature, but journalistic-like ‘been there, seen that, here's the bullet I've got’. The author doesn't just quote, she checks. Tests. Compares. Goes to see, touch and try. And always reflects and re-considers “Have I thought about every possibility? How much is my conclusion probable? How much is this witness reliable? Why this interpretation and not that?” There's no prejudices in her inquiries, and what she judges are methods, not persons. Means that she doesn't discriminate even the most *cough* alternative sciences. Instead brush it aside, she prefers to test it. Admittedly and not very surprisingly, most of such 'alternatives' fails miserably when put under 'why?' and 'how?' and 'what if?' cross fire, nevertheless they got their chance.
Possibly you noticed that in the book's subject (and many others) there are two popular approaches:
1. “Oh, let's be serious! You must be silly if you bother your head with such superstitious idiocy!”
2. “Oh, I'm serious person, of course. But, you know, there must be something greater than us. Who I am to deny it.” (This one’s usually said with what is supposed to be the expression of a 'wise man of Orient' and a half pious, half mysterious tone.)
To tell the truth, I think the both ways lead nowhere. How about an experiment? Let's use these approaches on a question “Did merchants sell unicorn horns centuries ago?” Look what happens now.
1. “Oh, come on! Unicorns don't exist, they're fairy tales!”
2. “Well, maybe you need to believe in unicorns to see them”.
You see now what I mean? Where's any real answer in it? And first and foremost, what it all has to do with the real thingies which had been changing hands, well paid? I prefer the third way: “Merchants used to sell rhinoceros horns and narwhal teeth, calling them unicorn's and meaning the legendary beasts”. Now, this is some answer for me, and if someone feels cheated, well, real answers sometimes deny delusions, deal with it. But why not to look at it from the other side? Real answers are fascinating too, often even more than delusions.
Roach's book is all the third way approach, and that's why I love it. The best example is the fragment about a fellow who heard from a charwoman about a ghost in a storeroom, and later he experienced bizarre things himself. The first way's typical reaction? “Oh, she was an old stupid woman, and he was drunk. And both of them lie anyway.” The second way's? “You see?! Why don't you believe! Oh, you're just stubborn and keeping your third eye shut!”. I much prefer the way of the very same fellow, who turned his brain's switch on, and began to really search. And found SPOILER ALERT an old air conditioner in the cellar, which vibrations resonated through the all building. END OF SPOILER ALERT I think that “Do ghosts exist or not?” is a wrong question, leading nowhere. The better one would be “What is the explanation of this or that person's experiences?” I'm not saying that all real answers must be disappointing (or what you deem disappointing), I don't deny that there are unknown things to discover. Everything had to be found once for the first time, hadn't it? What I'm saying is that discovered things can turn out absolutely different than expected, and whatever they will be, we certainly won't get them just saying either “Oh, that's silly, of course I don't believe it!” or “Of course it must be the truth, I believe it!”. It should be “Let's check what's really going on”.

Katarzyna Leżeńska, Studnia życzeń (The Well of Wishes)
A mainstream drama, or a book called 'normal' by people who use to tell in that special wave-of-hand tone “Nah, I don't read fantasy” (sf, crime, horror, thriller, and romance fit too).
An old lady dies and leaves her daughter the family's old house, a damp half-ruin where no one lived from years, sited in a very nice place, as long as you like trucks rushing a few meters from your bed by 24/7. There's, however, one obstacle for selling the 'estate' – the old lady's sister still lives and avoids any contact with relatives from over fifty years. Hanka, a widowed accountant and the daughter of the heiress, decides to go and inspect the house. Gradually she discovers forgotten and unknown details of grandma Rozalia's life, not without conclusions for her own.
With a summary this time, cause you can't get the link to an English version, and if you ever do, I'll be more surprised than a fellow who found beetroots dangling from his apple tree. It's hardly the greatest achievement of the world's literature, but somehow I like this author, even if not in that 'OMG, loved it!!!' fannish way. I appreciate the simple realism of her writing. Do mind, 'realism', not 'naturalism'. No 'artistic' emo-gloom'n'dirt. But also no comedy-like fairy-tale on crazy thirties, if you get my meaning, even though the heroine is thirty something, and she has a friend, and there's a man, and even some humour here and there. All in all it's 'OK'. Characters are OK, the plot's OK, the writing's OK. Yeah, what an incredibly eloquent and helpful review, I know. But, you see, the point is that I liked this book (this author) for how it feels compared to the others, usually placed on the nearby shelves. I read it without annoyance I often get from 'books about life', especially in the variant 'I'm a woman, and my life is so embarrassing and full of funny catastrophes, and I'm like all of us, women, you know, yay!!1!'. There's more of annoying variants (like 'your internal witch, wisdom of your female ancestors, and your granny's secret recipe for apple pie is what really matters in life'), and I like that Leżeńska does not write like this. (Though, to be honest, usually it's not as much the pattern which is annoying, as a poor realization of it.) Hanka in Studnia życzeń isn't 'every woman', she's just Hanka, and other characters are just characters too, all of them individual. The author doesn't try to sell me any Wonderful Philosophy of Life, and it's a refreshing feeling. I appreciate it.

Chip Walter, Thumbs, Toes, and Tears
The book is popular science, and turned out more the former than the latter, what was even more visible for that my copy was a double proofread edition, and the scientific editor every now and often corrected small mistakes in data. The most of them doesn't matter so much though. The exact geographic range of species, or the average capacity of skulls aren't so important, IMHO, as long as it doesn't change the general image, though of course it's nice to get it correct. However, the scientific editor didn't say a word in some other cases, which are more serious failures, or I think so. I mean, when the author gets carried away riding the Poetry horse and writes that evolution 'has plans', 'looks for solutions' and 'needs new tools' it's high time to check him, whoa! man, hold on and cool down. This aside, I quite enjoyed it, and I think it's good in its weight class, so to speak. It covers a lot of issues, giving enough to incite the interest, but in rather short manner, so if someone doesn't like thorough and detailed treatises with more footnotes than the main text, it should be a nice reading. (Speaking of footnotes, I hate when they are on the end of the book, instead to be really foot-of-the-page-notes... *sigh*)
And, what matters the most, just the subject itself is exciting enough to make it an interesting book. Besides, it reminded me my annoyance for the old romantic myth on the oh-so-weak human being. Thinking reed and all that jazz. Thinking, OK, sometimes it is, as long as you don't expect it on a college lecture in Sunday at 8 am. But weak??? Oh, come on! Have you ever tried to really check that myth?
- How many animals there is, able to walk and run, climb, swim and dive, all skills in one body? Yeah, gazelles, dolphins and squirrels are better, but only in their single narrow specialty. Not really useful when one rather needs to cope with the variety of life's situations, instead to break records, don't you think?
- We have iron stomachs. No, really. Homo sapiens is able to live on boiled boots and belts (well, as long as you don't wear only nylon and neoprene). Not very long and not particularly happy, but still enough to survive and find something tastier. Now, can you imagine koalas or pandas spreading all over the world?
- We have an excellent sight. At this point birds of prey are usually mentioned, but again, it's a similar case like with dolphins and squirrels. Instead looking for a sharper sight, let's pay attention to what we have, and what the most of animals has not, especially not in such combination: a wide spectrum of colours, stereoscopy, and ability to switch the focus from a very long to very short distance and back, in a blink of an eye. Think on it every time when you'll see again a very flat hedgehog that didn't notice a coming car...
- We’re quite big creatures. What, there are bigger ones? Yeah, tell it to a fox or magpie. “Don't be afraid of humans, sweethearts, elephants are even bigger.”
- Only some species of birds can rival us in controlling of breath (the book mentions about this issue too), and it doesn't mean those birds are better in it. Homo sapiens is a weak ninny, cause lions have claws and fangs? Oh, yeah? And is there a lion able to sing in Cats?
- Are you able to walk fifteen km? (nine miles?) I think so, even if you don't consider yourself particularly fit. Information for those of you who spend their lives behind a driving wheel: it's a nice distance if you have a few free hours and aren't in a great hurry; besides, you make some half of it every time when you visit a big shopping mall and spend there comparable time. For thousands and thousands of more practiced hikers, 'a nice distance' means rather twenty-thirty km. Real extremities begin not before fifty km. Now, have you ever thought that our nice pastime would be a killing ordeal for many species? And no, I don't mean only snakes, seals and crocodiles. Take a look at messageboards of hikers, you'll see one of the most asked questions in threads on the subject 'dog as a companion' is “What dog should I have, what breed is strong enough?”. The book mentions this issue too, describing tribal hunters who just chase a deer to death. Yeah, there's plenty of animals able to outrun us. They pass us with a whoosh and cloud of dust, then lay down and pant, when a human keeps walking. And walking. And walking...
Now, do notice so far I haven't even needed to say a word about what usually is brought up as the only advantages we have: brain and agile hands. The only. Poor miserable creatures, frailty weaklings against the clawed and bloodthirsty Nature, and whatnot... That myth is not outdated, cause it never was valid in the first place.

Your thoughts welcomed as always. :)